<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Desde que un amigo me contó de la existencia de una corriente
pensamiento ocurrentemente llamada NqNp, fundamentalmente adversa a la
interdisciplina (según imaginé/entendí yo) he venido pensando en la
combinación inmediata de letras.<br>
<br>
NrNs (No reason No science) con la que me identifico y contrapongo a la
"ciencia normal" de las disciplinas cerradas devenidas en fábricas de
la "ciencia industrializada".<br>
<br>
Dado que como profetiza mi última diatriba hecha pública (yo_evaluo),
la oportunidad de la evaluación de las carreras de doctorado querrá ser
aprovechada por los grupos con mas poder para acrecentar el mismo y
adelantar la definición de ciencia que mejor los deje posicionados
(robo a Bourdieu como tantas veces), incremento mi presión sobre la
honestidad intelectual de los mismos e intento despertarla (empiezo a
sospechar que está dormida) acercándoles este paper aparecido en<font
face="Comic Sans MS" size="3"><i> Social Science Journal</i> 34 (#2):
201-216 (1997).</font><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/PAGEPUB/10CHEERS.HTM">http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/PAGEPUB/10CHEERS.HTM</a><br>
<br>
Si no "tienen tiempo" (es decir, entender estas cosas es de baja
prioridad) les dejo algunos párrafps que encontarán en el mismo:<br>
<small>"<font size="3"><small><font size="4"><small><small><font
face="Times New Roman">a <i>discipline</i>
can be conveniently defined as any comparatively self-contained and
isolated domain of
human experience which possesses its own community of experts<i>" </i>y
estas palabras que toma de Wright Mills y que en verdad son preclaras
(cambien social-scientist por natural-scientist y el significado se
mantiene)</font></small></small></font></small></font><br>
</small><font size="3"><font size="4"><font face="Times New Roman"><i><br>
</i></font></font></font><font size="3"><font size="3"><font
face="Times New Roman">"The sociological imagination . . . in
considerable part consists of the capacity to shift from one
perspective to another, and
in the process to build up an adequate view of a total society and of
its components. It
is this imagination, of course, that sets off the social scientist from
the mere
technician. Adequate technicians can be trained in a few years. The
sociological
imagination can also be cultivated; certainly it seldom occurs without
a great deal of
routine work. Yet there is an unexpected quality about it, perhaps
because its essence is
the combination of ideas that no one say, a mess of ideas from German
philosophy and
British economics. There is a playfulness of mind back of such
combining as well as a
truly fierce drive to make sense of the world, which the technician as
such usually lacks.
Perhaps he is too well trained, too precisely trained. Since one can be
<i>trained</i>
only in what is already known, training sometimes incapacitates one
from learning new
ways; it makes one rebel against what is bound to be at first loose and
even sloppy."<br>
<br>
Y la declaración de nuestra histórica búsqueda:<br>
</font></font></font><font size="3"><font size="4">
<p><small><i><font face="Times New Roman">Unity of Knowledge</font></i><font
face="Times New Roman">: It is of course impossible, in our
age, to become an expert in everything. But if we mistake disciplinary
knowledge for
wisdom; if we forget how much we don't know; if we forget how much we
cannot know; if we
don't set for ourselves, in principle at least, the ideal of the unity
of knowledge; we
lose something of great importance. By persistently aiming at the hazy
target of
omniscience, interdisciplinarians help us remember these things. They
thus spur us to see
the various components of human knowledge for what they are: pieces in
a panoramic jigsaw
puzzle. And they inspire us to recall that "the power and majesty of
nature in all
its aspects is lost on him who contemplates it merely in the detail of
its parts, and not
as a whole" (Pliny, 1977, p. 581).</font></small></p>
<p>y estas palabras sobre libertad académica también imperdibles<br>
<font size="3"><font size="3">
<p><font face="Times New Roman">To preserve even a modest degree of
intellectual
integrity, the enemy within should not remain
unnoticed . . . The problem remains of how to bridge the evident
divisions and thus to promote that recognition of commonality which
seems essential to the
maintenance of some measure of collective independence. . . . An
enhanced recognition of mutuality could serve as better defense against
the intrusive
managerialism which seeks to impose a crude form of accountability,
based on false
assumptions about the nature of intellectual endeavor, and bolstered by
insensitive and
often spurious "indicators of performance." It might even help to
persuade the
wider society, on whose patronage the pursuit of knowledge ultimately
depends, to maintain
for academics a reasonable liberty--if one which remains well short of
license--in their
choice of what to study and how to study it. (Becher, 1989, pp.
169-171) </font></p>
</font><font size="4">
<p>Sapere aude<br>
Hernan<br>
</p>
</font></font><br>
</p>
</font></font><br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
"There is facts about dogs, and there is opinions about them. The dogs have
the facts and the humans the opinions. If you want facts about a dog, always
get them straight from the dog. If you want opinions, get them from humans" J
Allen Boone. A Kinship with all Life.
Hernán Gustavo Solari, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:solari@df.uba.ar">solari@df.uba.ar</a>, <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.df.uba.ar/%7Esolari">http://www.df.uba.ar/~solari</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>